Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

You, yourself, contacted a reweaving firm, and posted their materials.

You, yourself, even agreed with the material you posted--or, at least, for a time, seemed so to do.

All of which is immaterial in the light of Mme. F-L (who has the expertise you do not) stating unequivocally that "invisible" repairs are plainly visible on the back of the repaired cloth, and that no such repair had been seen on the manifestly medieval linen of the CIQ.

I remain,

Patiently yours &ct.

Slowvehicle,
- I did contact a reweaving firm, discovered that "French Reweave" required using all original material and I posted that information here.
- But also, Pakeha posted the following -- http://www.internationalskeptics.com...67#post8650267. According to the president and owner of the firm, French Reweaving does result in a repair that is invisible to the naked eye, from both sides.
- Unfortunately, that doesn't help my argument any -- unless, the handling while doing the French Reweave would significantly contaminate the area. I assume that it would not -- but, I don't know and will try (amongst other related errands) to contact Joe Marino for his position on that.

__________________"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor

Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...

Posts: 17,348

Originally Posted by Jabba

Slowvehicle,
- I did contact a reweaving firm, discovered that "French Reweave" required using all original material and I posted that information here.
- But also, Pakeha posted the following -- http://www.internationalskeptics.com...67#post8650267. According to the president and owner of the firm, French Reweaving does result in a repair that is invisible to the naked eye, from both sides.
- Unfortunately, that doesn't help my argument any -- unless, the handling while doing the French Reweave would significantly contaminate the area. I assume that it would not -- but, I don't know and will try (amongst other related errands) to contact Joe Marino for his position on that.

In other words, because you revile her, you feel free to ignore Mme. F-L's unequivocal statement (and remember, she actually handled the CIQ...).

It is also interesting to note that you missed a set os scare quotes; and that you continue to ignore the fact that the soi dissant "French" reweave could not, by its very nature, affect the 14C date...

__________________"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze

Apologies to the folks who want Jabba to do his own research. I was curious enough about the specifics of the technique to look for more info for my own knowledge, and then it seemed a waste not to share what I found.

No worries. You can do Jabba's homework if you will. He just can't demand it.

Quote:

*Snip-snip*
Does that make sense, Jabba? French reweaving is invisible only in the sense that it is less visible than other methods of repairing woven fabric.

Exactly, which is why Jabba recently introduced the concept "nearly invisible" reweave, ...... and then proceded to assume that it was not seen by the people who were specifically looking for it.

Hans

__________________If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.

- Unfortunately, that doesn't help my argument any -- unless, the handling while doing the French Reweave would significantly contaminate the area. I assume that it would not -- but, I don't know and will try (amongst other related errands) to contact Joe Marino for his position on that.

Significantly contaminate, in this context, means adding twice the amount of contaminant than the original cloth, IF the repair was done recently (as in the 20eth century). More if it was earler. That simply does not make sense.

Jabba, this parrot is dead.

Hans

__________________If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.

In other words, because you revile her, you feel free to ignore Mme. F-L's unequivocal statement (and remember, she actually handled the CIQ...).

It is also interesting to note that you missed a set os scare quotes; and that you continue to ignore the fact that the soi dissant "French" reweave could not, by its very nature, affect the 14C date...

Slowvehicle,
- I don't ignore her statement. I place it in the "con" pan, and try to give it the weight it deserves. While I accept that her opinion deserves a lot of weight, I just don't give it as much weight as do you. Not yet, at least.

__________________"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor

Slowvehicle,
- I don't ignore her statement. I place it in the "con" pan, and try to give it the weight it deserves. While I accept that her opinion deserves a lot of weight, I just don't give it as much weight as do you. Not yet, at least.

-There are no pans. Only evidence, or in your case, a complete lack thereof.

-Effective debate® has failed.

-One respondent at a time has failed.

-The scales® analogy has failed.

-All you can do now is back your assertions with actual evidence.

-Anything you do that is not presenting evidence can be dismissed as a stalling tactic.

-Make with the *********** evidence already.

-Your clothes. Give them to me. Now

__________________ "There is a plenty of proof, but unfortunately it is entirely unprovable." - Punshhh
"There’s a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an idiot." – Stephen Wright

Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...

Posts: 17,348

Originally Posted by Jabba

Slowvehicle,
- I don't ignore her statement. I place it in the "con" pan, and try to give it the weight it deserves. While I accept that her opinion deserves a lot of weight, I just don't give it as much weight as do you. Not yet, at least.

My Dear Mr. Savage:

You have not the expertise to pretend to equate Mme. F-L's exhaustive examination of the actual CIQ with M&P's second-hand conjectures about "...some patching" that they have invented to explain the "wrong" date.

You claim not to be ignoring it; you are certainly dismissing it.

Observation can produce evidence. Conjecture does not.

Did you miss the part where a "French" reweave is "smaller than a dime"?

I continue to remain,

patiently yours, &ct.

__________________"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze

Slowvehicle,
- I don't ignore her statement. I place it in the "con" pan, and try to give it the weight it deserves. While I accept that her opinion deserves a lot of weight, I just don't give it as much weight as do you. Not yet, at least.

Just out of curiosity, how does the weight of Mme. F-L's statement compare with that of Ray Rogers'?

You have not the expertise to pretend to equate Mme. F-L's exhaustive examination of the actual CIQ with M&P's second-hand conjectures about "...some patching" that they have invented to explain the "wrong" date.

You claim not to be ignoring it; you are certainly dismissing it.

Observation can produce evidence. Conjecture does not.

Did you miss the part where a "French" reweave is "smaller than a dime"?

BTW, what do all these sources say about the effect that a French re-weave will have on non-visible "banding patterns"?

I propose that it would be as obvious as could be. Even if not, it would certainly cause a disruption.

__________________I have a permanent room at the Home for the Chronically Groovy - Floyd from the Muppets

Slowvehicle,
- I don't ignore her statement. I place it in the "con" pan, and try to give it the weight it deserves. While I accept that her opinion deserves a lot of weight, I just don't give it as much weight as do you. Not yet, at least.

That's just a fancy way of saying you're ignoring her in favor of your preferred conjecture. Amen to any hope of consilience therefore on this point. Move on.

Slowvehicle,
- I don't ignore her statement. I place it in the "con" pan, and try to give it the weight it deserves. While I accept that her opinion deserves a lot of weight, I just don't give it as much weight as do you. Not yet, at least.

You misquoted her and use every measly, miserable excuse to ignore her educated opinion that you can muster.

That seems to be true for every other informed opinion on the CIQ that doesn't support your magical beliefs.

ETA: Before you ask: I will not go back and look-up your own contradictory statements, and admissions of rhetorical and intellectual bankruptcy.

Slowvehicle,
- I don't ignore her statement. I place it in the "con" pan, and try to give it the weight it deserves. While I accept that her opinion deserves a lot of weight, I just don't give it as much weight as do you. Not yet, at least.

At this point, what is there to suggest that this cloth is what you want it to be?

Jabba needs to get himself a set of scales, put a pound of lead in the "con" side and then see how many weightless things he has to add the "pro" side before the scales tip in his favour. Sourcing weightless things should be easy, he just has to imagine them and then pretend to carefully place them in the pan. He can then stand back, make a note of the results (as opposed to his normal research methodology, which is to assume whatever it is he's done supports his conclusion) and repeat. Ad infinitum.

__________________"You may not know anything about the issue but I bet you reckon something.
So why not tell us what you reckon? Let us enjoy the full majesty of your uninformed, ad hoc reckon..."
David Mitchell

[quote=Jabba;11029960
- Unfortunately, that doesn't help my argument any -- unless, the handling while doing the French Reweave would significantly contaminate the area. I assume that it would not -- but, I don't know and will try (amongst other related errands) to contact Joe Marino for his position on that.[/QUOTE]
We're still waiting for you to come up with a "contamination" that would survive the cleansing processes used prior to the radio carbon dating.

__________________As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.

Apologies to the folks who want Jabba to do his own research. I was curious enough about the specifics of the technique to look for more info for my own knowledge, and then it seemed a waste not to share what I found.

Disclaimer: I’m a mediocre knitter, an abysmal seamstress and haven’t woven anything other than a placemat on a plastic loom when I was 6, so I welcome any corrections if my understanding of what I read is mistaken.

Hi Jabba,

In looking for more information about the French reweaving technique, I found this document with detailed instructions about the process. It has several images that may help you understand why a repair done using this technique will still be visible if one knows what to look for, even though it’s described as being an invisible repair technique.

Before we get to images, go to page 22 of the book (page 24 of the pdf) and read the text under the header The Problem of Extra Thickness.

Note the use of the word “inconspicuous” rather than “invisible”.

If you scroll down to page 23 of the book (page 25 of the pdf), there’s Visualgram No. 6 at the top. That image shows how to begin the repair by starting the reweave several threads away from where the damaged area is. The reweave needs to overlap undamaged areas of the fabric to secure it. That’s the sort of thing that will make the end result visible.

Scroll down to the next page, page 24 of the book (page 26 of the pdf) and at the bottom of that page is Visualgram No. 7. As the caption under that photo explains, the ends of the broken thread are visible, the thread that goes all the way across is the replacement thread, and the area where there are two threads side by side is the join that anchors the repaired area in place.

Pages 26 and 27 of the book (pages 27 and 28 of the pdf) have Visualgram Nos. 8 and 9, demonstrating how the joins are staggered. Again, the rows where there are two threads overlapping are highly visible compared to the other single thread areas.

Finally, the loose ends of the broken threads need to be trimmed and the instructions for that are on page 30 of the book (32 of the pdf). The first and third paragraphs under Visualgraph No. 10 instruct that if the ends of the trimmed threads are visible on the right side of the fabric, they should be pushed through to the back. Those thread ends won’t be seen on the right side of the fabric at that point, but they will be visible from the back side of the fabric.

Regardless of the type of thread or the style of weave, these are the basic steps. There’s going to be some overlapping of threads and some ends that poke through to the reverse side. For a very fine weave using very fine threads, the overlap may indeed be invisible to the naked eye, from the right side at least. The Shroud of Turin, however, is not a fabric woven with what would be considered fine thread by today’s standards.

Front and back images (original source here, pages 4-5) showing the thread and weave pattern of the Shroud of Turin. Please note that individual threads are very easily visible at 1:1 magnification (that is, with no magnification at all) and it would be very obvious if any of those threads were overlapping or doubled up as would be necessary for the French reweaving technique, or if any of the broken ends had been pushed through to the reverse side.

Does that make sense, Jabba? French reweaving is invisible only in the sense that it is less visible than other methods of repairing woven fabric.

Tomboy,
- Thanks. What you're saying sounds right, and like Mr. Ehrlich was overstating his case...
- What are your thoughts on the claims of others re past tampering with that corner? You've probably told me already, but I can't remember.

__________________"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor

__________________"You may not know anything about the issue but I bet you reckon something.
So why not tell us what you reckon? Let us enjoy the full majesty of your uninformed, ad hoc reckon..."
David Mitchell

Slowvehicle,
- I did contact a reweaving firm, discovered that "French Reweave" required using all original material and I posted that information here.
- But also, Pakeha posted the following -- http://www.internationalskeptics.com...67#post8650267. According to the president and owner of the firm, French Reweaving does result in a repair that is invisible to the naked eye, from both sides.
- Unfortunately, that doesn't help my argument any -- unless, the handling while doing the French Reweave would significantly contaminate the area. I assume that it would not -- but, I don't know and will try (amongst other related errands) to contact Joe Marino for his position on that.

Don't know where you got that from:

Originally Posted by withoutatrace

The repair is virtually indistinguishable from the surrounding fabric

The repair is only "virtually indistinguishable", and only with the naked eye. The Turin Shroud was subjected to far more detailed scrutiny.

Even so, French Reweaving requires the use of the original thread and so wouldn't have an impact on the dating.

What you're saying sounds right, and like Mr. Ehrlich was overstating his case...

Or, as we've discovered is quite likely, your trusted-but-untrustworthy authors Marino and Prior overstated their case. Will you therefore drop the point and move on? Will you finally present some justification for relying so heavily on such patently shoddy scholarship?

Quote:

What are your thoughts on the claims of others re past tampering with that corner? You've probably told me already, but I can't remember.

If you want people to consider "the claims of others," you need to present evidence that the claims are worth considering. That means more than simply presenting what your sole source represents them as saying. And broadening the search area with no justification to do so is just the same handwaving nonsense Marino and Prior did to suggest that the features noted by Raes in one place must translate to late patches in a different place. That's not proof. It's just wishful thinking.

Tomboy,
- Thanks. What you're saying sounds right, and like Mr. Ehrlich was overstating his case...
- What are your thoughts on the claims of others re past tampering with that corner? You've probably told me already, but I can't remember.

Originally Posted by JayUtah

If you want people to consider "the claims of others," you need to present evidence that the claims are worth considering. That means more than simply presenting what your sole source represents them as saying. And broadening the search area with no justification to do so is just the same handwaving nonsense Marino and Prior did to suggest that the features noted by Raes in one place must translate to late patches in a different place. That's not proof. It's just wishful thinking.

This, Jabba. There's no evidence of tampering in that corner. If you have evidence of tampering, please present it.

This, Jabba. There's no evidence of tampering in that corner. If you have evidence of tampering, please present it.

Tomboy,
- So far, I don't agree with why others don't count Entry#2 as evidence. Is your explanation the same as theirs?
- Whatever, I'll go back and rethink their explanations.

__________________"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor

This, Jabba. There's no evidence of tampering in that corner. If you have evidence of tampering, please present it.

Originally Posted by Jabba

Tomboy,
- So far, I don't agree with why others don't count Entry#2 as evidence. Is your explanation the same as theirs?
- Whatever, I'll go back and rethink their explanations.

Congratulations, Tomboy, on your selection as Jabba's current Least Skeptical Poster. It is not a permanent position, but it is an important one. I wish you luck over the next few days and hope you can help move this thread forward. Remember, with great power comes great responsibility. Godspeed.

- According to Jay, observation "trumps" inference.
- I would point out that this word doesn't really apply -- and confuses the issue -- when we're considering "preponderance of evidence."
- Do I need to explain?

__________________"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor

- According to Jay, observation "trumps" inference.
- I would point out that this word doesn't really apply -- and confuses the issue -- when we're considering "preponderance of evidence."
- Do I need to explain?

Well, there is no inference, only unfounded conjecture, as opposed to expert observation.

The sample that was carbon-dated is not patched. Even if it were, the patching threads would have been from the same material, and any contamination from the patching process would have been insufficient to affect the date and would anyway have been removed by the cleaning process.

__________________The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232Ezekiel 23:20

- According to Jay, observation "trumps" inference.
- I would point out that this word doesn't really apply -- and confuses the issue -- when we're considering "preponderance of evidence."
- Do I need to explain?

Aren't you tired of going around in circles when you could just say that the Shroud is science-proof magic and get on with your life?

So far, I don't agree with why others don't count Entry#2 as evidence.

But you don't address their arguments. You simply reiterate that you'd like to keep believing in what you've been claiming. Disagreement without a rational explanation is just intransigence.

Address these points and then maybe your denial might have a rational basis.

1. The operant conclusion is a speculative inference without support.

2. The inference is drawn by Marino and Prior, who are not experts, not by the cited authority.

3. The inference is one of several possible antecedents; you consider only it.

4. The consequent is directly refuted by competent expertise.

5. The rationale from speculative inference to consequent is contravened by pertinent testimony which the authors misrepresent.

Quote:

Whatever, I'll go back and rethink their explanations.

Unless you plan on actually addressing any of those explanations with anything more potent than denial and doubt, you're just proposing another spin of the hamster wheel. This would tend to confirm the criticism that you don't intend to have a serious discussion.

- According to Jay, observation "trumps" inference.
- I would point out that this word doesn't really apply -- and confuses the issue -- when we're considering "preponderance of evidence."

It certainly does apply, especially because your "inferences" are based on circular logic. You are inferring the existence of patching from the fact that the carbon dating gives what you consider to be the wrong date, and then trying to use this inference as evidence that the carbon dating is wrong.

Inferences may be useful if they are based on relevant observations, but none of your speculations about invisible, near invisible, or otherwise undetected and undocumented repairs are based on anything beyond your fervent desire to discount the carbon dating. They are not evidence.

__________________"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...

Posts: 17,348

Originally Posted by Jabba

- According to Jay, observation "trumps" inference.
- I would point out that this word doesn't really apply -- and confuses the issue -- when we're considering "preponderance of evidence."
- Do I need to explain?

My Dear Mr. Savage:

You do not need to "explain" your hope that you can avoid facing reality by pretending that this is a "trial", and that the proper standard is "preponderance of the evidence" (neither of which, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly) is correct.

On the one hand, you have two renown fabric authorities, who examined the CIQ in situ and found not a skerrick of evidence for any "...patching".

On the other hand, you have a group of committed sidonists, who, needing to explain away the "wrong" date provided by the most observed bit of 14C dating ever, have conjectured that there "may have been" "...some patching", without ever once finding any actual evidence that such exists.

There is no evidence, none, of the "...patching" you need to shore up your faith.

Trough it all, I remain,

Patiently yours, &ct.

__________________"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze

And I explained in detail which was the inference and which was the observation and why each merits the label I applied. Do not pretend I said or implied otherwise. Do not pretend my statement "somehow" defends your argument.

Quote:

I would point out that this word doesn't really apply -- and confuses the issue

No, do not resort to word games. The words mean what I say they do, and they convey the appropriate meanings in my argument.

Quote:

when we're considering "preponderance of evidence."

You have no evidence. You are pitting conjecture against observation. You are pitting inference against observation. You have absurdly tried to excuse your lack of evidence with the further speculation that it's invisible. That's just silly.

Quote:

Do I need to explain?

Yes. And you need to explain it in a way that doesn't try to redefine words. That's just another way to shift the goalposts.

Inferences are required in logic. Deductive inferences are deductively strong, which means they are guaranteed to express truth in a syllogism of validating form, based on true premises. Inductive inferences become stronger the narrower the inductive gap is. But direct observation of the veracity of the consequent makes the inductive gap irrelevant, because it makes induction irrelevant.

[N]one of your speculations about invisible, near invisible, or otherwise undetected and undocumented repairs are based on anything beyond your fervent desire to discount the carbon dating. They are not evidence.

They're not even really inference. They're pretty much just pure conjecture. "I see this and I speculate that this cause produced them." If that speculation were based in any way upon fact or defensible chains of causation, that would be worth paying attention to. That would be an inference worth exploring. But when it's just pure, circular attribution then it has no value whatsoever. The inductive gap in such a situation is infinitely wide.

They're not even really inference. They're pretty much just pure conjecture. "I see this and I speculate that this cause produced them." If that speculation were based in any way upon fact or defensible chains of causation, that would be worth paying attention to. That would be an inference worth exploring. But when it's just pure, circular attribution then it has no value whatsoever. The inductive gap in such a situation is infinitely wide.

The only actual inference Jabba is making is that the carbon dating must be wrong because the shroud is authentic. All the speculation about undetected patches and repairs is just an attempt to come up with justifications for this.

__________________"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

The only actual inference Jabba is making is that the carbon dating must be wrong because the shroud is authentic.

Yes, this is apparent. But his trusted-but-untrustworthy authors Marino and Prior make inferences of their own. That is, in logical function they are inferences. In plain terms, they are also pure conjecture.

In a similar circularity, they note that Raes and others say they found foreign material. From this they infer there "must" have been a patch. This is an attempt at inductive reasoning. As you remember from basic instruction, induction means to reason from specific to general. In practice this means reasoning from bits of information toward an overall conclusion, if possible. In court, a jury is asked to reason from disconnected bits of testimony etc. presented to them to a general determination of guilt. They are asked to infer guilt from a collection of noted items and attestations. Reasonable doubt is the standard for measuring the remaining inductive gap in that context.

But here it's pure speculation, based on very shaky claims and obvious problems with things such as chain of custody and standards of review. And thus is has no probative value.

It has even less value when observation contradicts the general conclusion toward which someone is trying to reason inductively. We infer inductively when we cannot observe the outcome. It's typically the best we can do under real world circumstances. We cannot rewind the clock and magically observe a crime being re-committed. Hence we do our best to infer fairly and reasonably. However in this case we can observe whether or not there's a relevant patch. And when we can, induction is moot. It simply doesn't matter what an inductive case concludes when the real conclusion can simply be observed.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.